‘Blatant nonsense’: Media hyped walrus climate scare stories debunked

Walrus Key Points:

  • Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford: Mass haulouts of Pacific walrus and stampede deaths are not new, not due to low ice cover – ‘The attempts by WWF and others to link this event to global warming is self-serving nonsense that has nothing to do with science…this is blatant nonsense and those who support or encourage this interpretation are misinforming the public.’
  • ‘The Pacific walrus remains abundant, numbering at least 200,000 by some accounts, double the number in the 1950s’
  • ‘Dating back to at least the 1604, there have been reports of large walrus gatherings or haulouts.’ – ‘Walrus haulouts are not unusual and have long been recognized and islands have been set aside for such gatherings.’
  • Walruses known to migrate away from ice in late summer & fall: “In the non-reproductive season (late summer and fall) walruses tend to migrate away from the ice and form massive aggregations of tens of thousands of individuals on rocky beaches or outcrops.”
  • AP’s own reporting debunks unprecedented walrus claims:  The AP reported on 40,000 walruses in a haulout just 7 years ago in a single location.
  • Walrus stampede deaths drop dramatically from 3000 in 2007 to 50 in 2014?: AP: 2007: ‘3,000 walruses die in stampedes tied to Climate’
  • Walrus stampede deaths benefit polar bears: ‘Stampeded remains of 100 walruses fed up to 185 polar bears’

Climate Depot Special Report

The October 1, 2014 Associated Press article linking the walrus gathering to melting sea ice, lacks historical perspective and contains serious spin that would lead readers to erroneous conclusions about walruses and the climate. [Update: Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford weighs in: Mass haulouts of Pacific walrus and stampede deaths are not new, not due to low ice cover – ‘The attempts by WWF and others to link this event to global warming is self-serving nonsense that has nothing to do with science…this is blatant nonsense and those who support or encourage this interpretation are misinforming the public.’ ]

First off, walruses are not endangered. According to the New York Times, “the Pacific walrus remains abundant, numbering at least 200,000 by some accounts, double the number in the 1950s.”

The AP article titled, “35,000 walrus come ashore in northwest Alaska”, claims “the gathering of walrus on shore is a phenomenon that has accompanied the loss of summer sea ice as the climate has warmed.” The AP even includes the environmental group World Wildlife Fund, to ramp up climate hype. “It’s another remarkable sign of the dramatic environmental conditions changing as the result of sea ice loss,” said Margaret Williams, managing director of the group’s Arctic program, by phone from Washington, D.C.Pacific Walrus_Davi

But the AP is recycling its own climate stories on walruses. See: 2009: AP: Walruses Gather as Ice Melts in the Arctic Sea (Sep 17 2009) Also see fact check on “melting” Arctic sea ice. See: Paper: ‘Myth of arctic meltdown’ : Stunning satellite images show ice cap has grown by an area twice the size of Alaska in two years – Despite Al Gore’s prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now

The media and green groups are implying that walrus hanging out by the tens of thousands is a new phenomenon and due to melting Arctic ice. But dating back to at least the 1604, there have been reports of large walrus gatherings or haulouts.

Excerpt: “Walruses became only really known in Europe after the 1604 expedition to the Kola Peninsula of the ship “Speed” of Muscovy Company, commanded by Stephen Bennet. On the way back to England the Speed reached what some years before a Dutch expedition had named “Bear Island”. The crew of the Speed discovered a haulout numbering about a thousand walruses on the island’s northern coast.”

According to a National Geographic article in 2007, walrus populations were not endangered. See: “While scientists lack a firm population estimate for the species, researchers have encountered herds as large as 100,000 in recent years”

Even the green activists group, the WWF, admits walrus ‘hangouts’ of tens of thousands are not unprecedented.

A 2009 WWF blog report noted: “WWF Polar Bear coordinator Geoff York returned on 17 September from a trip along the Russian coast and saw a haul out there with an estimated 20,000 walruses near Ryrkaipiy (on the Chukchi Peninsula).”

AP’s own reporting debunks walrus claims

Are 35,000 walruses gathering in “haulouts” on the shoreline with many be stampeded to death really that unusual? The answer is No!
The AP reported on 40,000 walruses in a haulout just 7 years ago in a single location. See: AP 12/14/2007: “40,000 in one spot” – “As a result, walruses came ashore earlier and stayed longer, congregating in extremely high numbers, with herds as big as 40,000 at Point Shmidt, a spot that had not been used by walruses as a “haulout” place for a century, scientists said.”

As climate blogger Tom Nelson noted in a December 28 2007 analysis:  “Are you saying that that spot *was* used as a haulout in earlier years?” Nelson wrote.

Nelson noted the media reported that “Walruses are vulnerable to stampedes when they gather in such large numbers. The appearance of a polar bear, a hunter or a low-flying airplane can send them rushing to the water.”

Nelson then asked: “Are stampedes ever caused by the appearance of researchers or low-flying research planes?”

Walrus stampede deaths drop dramatically from 3000 to 50?

The October 1, 2014 AP article notes with obvious concern for the walrus species: “Observers last week saw about 50 carcasses on the beach from animals that may have been killed in a stampede…”

Fifty walrus carcasses? That number is a significant improvement from 2007 when there were a reported 3000 dead walruses discovered from the late summer and fall on the Russian side of the Arctic, according to the AP’s own earlier reporting. See: 2007: ‘3,000 walruses die in stampedes tied to Climate’

Are walrus stampede deaths declining in recent years? It is difficult to say based on reports, but a high of 3000 deaths in 2007 (for a whole season) to a low of 50 deaths in 2014 for a single location, but it does not  appear to be an alarming trend. Why does the AP fail to put any historical perspective on their climate scare stories, especially when the AP’s own reporting from 7 years ago calls into question their claims?

The next issue is whether or not sea ice extent is critical to walruses in late summer and fall. According to this report, ice extent is not critical. As Nelson noted in 2007:

“When I read this in the (2007) ‘walrus’ Wikipedia entry, I’m also not convinced that lack of summer ice is necessarily a big deal.”

2007 Wikipedia entry: “In the non-reproductive season (late summer and fall) walruses tend to migrate away from the ice and form massive aggregations of tens of thousands of individuals on rocky beaches or outcrops.” [Note: This line has been omitted from the Wikipedia entry in 2014]

Walrus stampede deaths benefit polar bears

In addition, a 2007 WWF post inadvertently noted that the carcasses of stampeded walruses may actually be a great benefit to polar bears.

“Last fall some 20,000-30,000 animals were piled up there. No one has actually counted them all, but the Vankarem residents are certain the number is growing…In early winter, when the ice is re-forming and walruses leave the beach, up to 100 carcasses remain behind. These blubbery animals offer a perfect meal for wandering and hungry polar bears…In mid-November, a truck driver alerted the patrol to bear tracks on the beach. The wave had begun. For the next three weeks, bears making their way along the coast stopped to graze on the carcasses at this so-called “feeding point” instead of proceeding to the village. At one time alone, Sergey and his team counted 96 bears feeding on the walrus. In total they estimated that 185 bears had been circulating with a six mile radius around the village.”

The stampeded remains of 100 walruses fed up to 185 polar bears!

But despite the easily accessible historical data on walruses, the WWF and the AP and other media in 2014, continue to spin the haulouts as evidence of “climate change.”

Margaret Williams, WWF’s managing director of the Arctic program said in a September 18, 2014 article: “The massive concentration of walruses onshore—when they should be scattered broadly in ice-covered waters—is just one example of the impacts of climate change on the distribution of marine species in the Arctic.”

Is the WWF correct? Should walruses be “scattered broadly in ice-covered waters”? Not exactly. As Tom Nelson noted on Twitter, (Tom Nelson‏@tan123) “If walrus haulouts are a new thing, why was this walrus haulout sanctuary established in 1960”

According to the Alaskan government, walrus haulouts are not unusual and have long been recognized and islands have been set aside for such gatherings.

Excerpt: “The Walrus Islands State Game Sanctuary (WISGS), protects a group of seven small craggy islands and their adjacent waters in northern Bristol Bay, approximately 65 miles southwest of Dillingham. The WISGS includes Round Island, Summit Island, Crooked Island, High Island, Black Rock and The Twins. The WISGS was established in 1960 to protect one of the largest terrestrial haulout sites in North America for Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens).”

The Alaskan government report noted that numbers of 14,000 walrus haulouts in a single day were not unusual.

“Each summer large numbers of male walruses haul out on exposed, rocky beaches. Round Island is one of four major terrestrial haulouts in Alaska; the others are Capes Peirce (Togiak NWR), Newenham (Togiak NWR), and Seniavin (near Port Moller). Male walrus return to these haulouts every spring as the ice pack recedes northward, remaining in Bristol Bay to feed they haul out at these beach sites for several days between each feeding foray. The number of walrus using the island fluctuates significantly from year to year. However, up to 14,000 walrus have been counted on Round Island in a single day.”

Hunters have relied on large hangouts of walruses. This report details how walruses were “predictably present” and made for “clean and efficient butchering.”

Expert: “Qayassiq was especially important for walrus hunting because it was accessible in good weather; walruses were predictably present on the beach during the preferred fall hunt; and the beach is rocky, not sandy, promoting clean and efficient butchering. Hunting on haulouts was a highly organized activity.”

Update: Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford weighs in: Mass haulouts of Pacific walrus and stampede deaths are not new, not due to low ice cover – ‘The attempts by WWF and others to link this event to global warming is self-serving nonsense that has nothing to do with science… this is blatant nonsense and those who support or encourage this interpretation are misinforming the public.’ – Large haulouts of walruses — such as the one making news at Point Lay, Alaska on the Chukchi Sea (and which happened before back in 2009 — are not a new phenomenon for this region over the last 45 years and thus cannot be due to low sea ice levels. Nor are deaths by stampede within these herds (composed primarily of females and their young) unusual, as a brief search of the literature reveals. At least two documented incidents like this have occurred in the recent past: one in 1978, on St. Lawrence Island and the associated Punuk Islands and the other in 1972, on Wrangell Island (Fay and Kelly 1980, excerpts below)… Here is how the WWF is spinning this recent gathering at Point Lay:

We are witnessing a slow-motion catastrophe in the Arctic,” said Lou Leonard, WWF’s vice president for climate change.”

Crockford Summed it up: “As you can see, this is blatant nonsense and those who support or encourage this interpretation are misinforming the public.”

Related Link: Tom Nelson’s 2007 report: About those walrus stampedes – FRIDAY, DECEMBER 28, 2007

Google currently shows about 14,000 hits for “walruses stampedes”.

Excerpts from a typical scare story, along with my comments:

The giant, tusked mammals typically clamber onto the sea ice to rest, or haul themselves onto land for just a few weeks at a time.

Ok, so it’s not unusual for them to haul up on land. Google shows a lot of pictures of them on land.

As a result, walruses came ashore earlier and stayed longer, congregating in extremely high numbers, with herds as big as 40,000 at Point Shmidt, a spot that had not been used by walruses as a “haulout” for a century, scientists said.

Are you saying that that spot *was* used as a haulout in earlier years?

Walruses are vulnerable to stampedes when they gather in such large numbers. The appearance of a polar bear, a hunter or a low-flying airplane can send them rushing to the water.

Are stampedes ever caused by the appearance of researchers or low-flying research planes?

Sure enough, scientists received reports of hundreds and hundreds of walruses dead of internal injuries suffered in stampedes. Many of the youngest and weakest animals, mostly calves born in the spring, were crushed.

Biologist Anatoly Kochnev of Russia’s Pacific Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography estimated 3,000 to 4,000 walruses out of population of perhaps 200,000 died, or two or three times the usual number on shoreline haulouts.

Were anecdotal reports of “hundreds and hundreds” used to come up with the estimate of 3,000 to 4,000? How much actual counting was done? What’s the baseline number of annual stampede deaths? Is anyone checking that any animals found dead were killed in stampedes, rather than dying from some other cause?

No large-scale walrus die-offs were seen in Alaska during the same period, apparently because the animals congregated in smaller groups on the American side of the Bering Strait, with the biggest known herd at about 2,500.

So when a walrus herd of 2,500 is panicked, stampede deaths are not a big deal, but when the herd reaches tens of thousands, we can expect lots of stampede deaths?

It seems to me that more walruses worldwide may die from hunting than from stampedes. Note an excerpt from this Sea World link:

As the Pacific walrus population grew, annual subsistence catches by indigenous Arctic peoples ranged from about 3,000 to 16,000 walruses per year until about 1990, and then decreased to an average of 5,789 animals per year from 1996 to 2000.

A related paragraph is here:

Pacific walrus meat has been used for the past 40 years to feed foxes which are kept on government – subsidised fur farms in Chukotka. One estimate made by natives was of an annual kill of 10,000 – 12,000 walruses per year, but this may have been overstated. Recent investigations have found that much of the meat is left to waste and that there are no markets for the resultant fox furs. Fox farming operations in Chukotka are currently in decline due to economic recession. Local unemployment caused by the general economic situation and the closure of the farms has however led to a recent increase in illegal head-hunting.

Some more background information is in this 2007 WWF post:

Last fall some 20,000-30,000 animals were piled up there. No one has actually counted them all, but the Vankarem residents are certain the number is growing.

In early winter, when the ice is re-forming and walruses leave the beach, up to 100 carcasses remain behind. These blubbery animals offer a perfect meal for wandering and hungry polar bears.

As soon as the walruses departed, the polar bear patrol spent several days working to collect the remains of walruses killed in the stampedes. Using a tractor, they carted the carcasses six miles west of the village, anticipating that the bears would come from the west in the fall. In the end, they scattered some 80 walruses around selected sites — and then they waited.

In mid-November, a truck driver alerted the patrol to bear tracks on the beach. The wave had begun. For the next three weeks, bears making their way along the coast stopped to graze on the carcasses at this so-called “feeding point” instead of proceeding to the village. At one time alone, Sergey and his team counted 96 bears feeding on the walrus. In total they estimated that 185 bears had been circulating with a six mile radius around the village.

My comments: Eighty-100 dead walruses out of 20,000-30,000 hauled out on land seems quite low, if Kochnev’s estimate of 3,000-4,000 total stampede deaths is correct (remember, his estimate is based on a population of maybe 200,000, many of which are not hauled out in huge herds).

Also, if polar bear numbers are so threatened by global warming, what are 185 of them doing within six miles of the village?

When I read stuff like this, I’m also not completely convinced that walruses are threatened with extinction:

…researchers have encountered herds as large as 100,000 in recent years…

When I read this in the “walrus” Wikipedia entry, I’m also not convinced that lack of summer ice is necessarily a big deal:

“In the non-reproductive season (late summer and fall) walruses tend to migrate away from the ice and form massive aggregations of tens of thousands of individuals on rocky beaches or outcrops.”

In the same entry, when I read this, I’m not convinced that polar bears really need year-round sea ice in order to feed successfully.”

Polar bears hunt walruses by rushing at beached aggregations and consuming those individuals that are crushed or wounded in the sudden mass exodus, typically younger or infirm animals.

Some video of polar bears successfully hunting walruses is here and here. I don’t see any ice in that first hunting scene.

What we learned at the NYC Climate Change March

Americans for Prosperity sent a camera crew to the People’s Climate March in New York City, where thousands of people gathered to express their concerns about climate change. Watch to find out what we learned from the folks in the climate change movement.

Watch our response to President Obama’s climate change speech at the UN:

One, Two, Three, Four! What are we protesting for?

The Dissident Prof was wondering why high school students would be staging walk-outs and protests over history standards, but suspected there had to be some teachers involved.  Today’s high school and college students are so immersed in stories about the glory days of protests that they will walk out of class and hold up a sign at any opportunity.  The Denver Post announced, “Hundreds of Jeffco students walk out in largest school board protest” and then the Huffington Post reported, “Nearly 1,000 Colorado Students Protest a Conservative Call to Change Their History Curriculum.”  Huff Post reporter Matt Ferner demonstrated he knows his stuff by penning with:

After calling for a history curriculum that downplays “social strife” and emphasizes “respect for authority,” a conservative Denver-area school board has attracted the same kind of civil disobedience it had hoped to gloss over in the classroom.

Well, we all know that every good thing in history has come about through protest.  Read the textbooks, watch the PBS videos, and listen to the classroom discussions, and you will know that protest has become a sacred rite.  So, it’s natural that the kiddos skip class and take to the streets.  Students once again are rising up!  Hey, it’s like the Sixties:

Hundreds of students marched Thursday in the fifth day of demonstrations against the Jefferson County school board, which oversees the second-largest school district in Colorado. Protests began last Friday after members of the board called for a review of the new Advanced Placement U.S. History (APUSH) curriculum to see whether it promotes “respect for authority” or encourages “civil disorder, social strife or disregard for the law.”

Uh, it’s not quite that simple.  For a quick summary of what the controversy is about read Jane Robbins’s excellent column in USA Today, “Exam erases U.S. exceptionalism.”  Robbins points to a Pioneer Institute study of the Advanced Placement U.S. History (APUSH) Curriculum Framework  that reveals that the new AP curriculum is ideologically slanted to the left. (Howard Zinn, for some reason, seemed to be pushed on the bright kids, but now that version of history is part of the official detailed AP curriculum.)

Leave it to Michelle Malkin to get to the bottom of the story about the protests: “‘A’ Is for Agitation: What’s Really Going on in Jefferson County Schools.”  It’s not about censorship (i.e., conservatives attempting to wipe out the negative aspects of U.S. history), but about union control.  Students followed teachers, who walked out to protest a new pay system based on performance.  At the same school board meeting where the pay system was approved, board members heard a proposal for a curriculum review committee; among the items was the APUSH curriculum.  Malkin writes,

While every liberal “-ism” has been incorporated into the school day — from environmentalism and collectivism to social justice activism to mandatory volunteerism, feminism and transgenderism — JeffCo school board members are now being mocked for simply proposing that citizenship, individualism and patriotism have a fundamental place at the schoolteacher’s table.

Imagine having a school board that is able to, and does, take a position on the curriculum and demands a balanced approach to teaching U.S. history!  How dare they oppose “The Schoolmaster” David Coleman, teaching applicant-reject (but Rhodes scholar), president of the College Board (which wrote the history standards) and architect of Common Core.  School board president Ken Witt told Malkin that he was upset about students missing class and being manipulated by teachers for their own interests: “The agitators’ ultimate goal is ‘to create turmoil and discredit [the] board before those negotiations.'”

Protest is in the air.  We are having pretty fall weather here in Central New York.  Last weekend was a good time to go to New York City for a march, and college students did.  After all, who would want to miss the “largest climate march in history” as the Columbia University student newspaper noted? They came from far and wide to participate with 400,000 other people in the People’s Climate March ahead of last week’s UN Climate Summit, for world leaders, including President Obama.  Eighty students and nine faculty and staff member traveled from Williams College in Massachusetts.  The Williams Record reported that protestors marched more than four miles and “carried signs and played live music.”  The social action was organized by the Williams Environmental Council.  Funding came from the Center for Environmental Studies, the Davis Center, the Department of Africana Studies, College Council and the Chaplain’s Office.  Dozens of college students were also among the contingent of 300 people from Minnesota.

Some groups did more than march.  They demanded their campus divest from fossil fuels investments.  This was in addition to the demand for “meaningful action” on climate change, as noted in the Columbia Spectator.

Divestment from fossil fuels was demanded by the “more than 45 Hamilton [College] students, alumni, faculty and staff” who “boarded buses, cars, trains and subways to arrive at the corner of 71st St. and Central Park West in New York City to participate in the People’s Climate March.”  The Spectator also reported, “Both Hamilton’s Environmental Action Group (HEAG) and Fossil Fuel Divestment Organization spearheaded the initiative to bring the marchers from Clinton, N.Y. to New York, N.Y.”–a distance of 249 miles by Thruway.

U.S. Messenger of Peace

U.S. Messenger of Peace

But it’s not as far as Minnesota…or the Marshall Islands, from whence came “spoken-word poet” Kathi Jetnil-Kijiner who reportedly moved the dignitaries to tears with her poem for her baby daughter about the threat of climate change.  Dissident Prof doesn’t know if climate change dignitary Leonardo DiCaprio jetted in from Hollywood as the United States Messenger of Peace, or if he did rub shoulders with any of the “people” in the People’s March.  But the Hamilton Spectator did report that “Several [students] were fortunate enough to run into longtime environmental writer and activist Bill McKibben.”  No doubt that is good use of “buses, cars, trains and subway trains” and the fossil fuels used to run them.

Climate Reality Conveniently Lost in New York City

When former Vice President Al Gore helped lead a parade of the faithful down New York’s Sixth Avenue this past Sunday in the “People’s Climate March,” it was lamentable to see how deluded so many have become about the real causes and effects of climate change. The fearful souls who confidently joined Al in the march either are unaware or unconcerned with how utterly lost they are between what is real and what Al and the President are telling them about climate change. Climate reality it seems got conveniently lost in the Big Apple this week.

Their President Barack Obama, in his address to the UN Climate Summit, continued to stress the need to eliminate an atmospheric trace gas for the sake of saving the planet. So committed are the flock that follow preacher Al and preacher Barack, that they simply have divorced themselves from the climate reality that surrounds them, a reality that is about to make life on planet Earth for much more difficult.

What is this ‘new climate reality?”

Climate-Change-March

People’s Climate March, Sunday, Sept. 21, 2014, in New York. AP Photo/Mel Evans.

Here are some of the life changing facts not discussed by the President, Al or others leading the climate festivities this week:

  1. THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING! The battle to end global warming has already been won – there has been no growth in the Earth’s average temperatures in the troposphere (where we live) for over eighteen years! Congratulations Mr. President you actually did fulfill one of your campaign promises. The cruel irony is of course, you had nothing to do with it. The faithful continued the march even though for most of the last two decades we have heard about global warming, there wasn’t any!
  2. The planet’s oceans and atmospheres are not in the so-called “pause” ready to restart warming at some future date – they are in fact COOLING! For eleven years now the oceans have been cooling and the atmosphere for most of that time. This is fundamental and not subject to negotiation. The cooling of the planet is a total violation of the UN’s failed CO2 driven climate models. On the other hand these climate trends are in complete accord with the significantly more reliable solar activity models that use natural cycles to predict climate. As a result of following this ‘best available science,’ my Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC) has racked up what at least one PhD investigative journalist has said, is the best track record of climate prediction in the United States.
  3. The most vital piece of information which the leaders of the global warming (a.k.a. climate change) religion failed to disclose to their followers was that A NEW POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS COLD CLIMATE HAS BEGUN. The public is intentionally being kept in the dark by the current administration in Washington on the matter of this new, hazardous, cold epoch. Unfortunately, if it repeats as similar past cold periods, it will be devastating for the planet’s agriculture. The one billion who already struggle daily to find enough food to eat are about to face their worst trial for survival in recorded history! If prominent Russian climate scientists are correct and the cold is at the level of the “little Ice Age” then the global suffering will be ‘biblical’ in scale.

For the ‘church of climate blindness,’ their high priests, and their happily self-deluded flock, this news of an impending dangerous cold climate will likely go un-communicated by the US government and their complicit media co-conspirators. History has also shown that those who make decisions based on what they want to believe instead of what the facts tell them, are the ones who pay the worst price. They are the ones who are least prepared for the adversity that the facts tell them is about to strike.

So, in what may be the most public display of cognitive dissonance in US history, a large portion of the American people celebrated along with those marching in New York City this week, reinforcing their belief that mankind controls the climate. They remain oblivious to the all-powerful Sun that it is about to inconveniently lower the boom on that notion, with a vengeance!

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is a Union of Concerned Scientists banner at the People’s Climate March in New York City, 20 September 2014. SOURCE: Kate Cell, UCS.

U.S.’ Nuclear Weapons Policy Puts Country At Great Risk

While China and Russia are upgrading their nuclear weapons inventory and are going forward with advance nuclear weapons research, and while Iran is developing nuclear weapons, the Executive Branch has been degrading America’s once superior and advanced nuclear weapons technology capability. The once most powerful U.S. nuclear weapons research facility in the world is rapidly falling behind Russia and China. Please read the below article by VADM Robert R. Monroe, USN (Ret).

Sandia Lab0ratory scientists have ceased doing exploratory and research work to avoid technology surprise by other nuclear powers, and work on new smaller and more effective design nuclear weapons has ceased all together. The U.S.‘s unilateral cessation of safe underground testing has prevented scientist from testing our aging nuclear weapons, and allowing the United States with the ability to replace them with modern smaller, more effective, and safer weapons—it leaves the Republic at the mercy of the Chinese and the Russians who have no such limitations and are progressing rapidly.

“Peace through Strength”, a policy that the endorsed Combat Veterans For Congress support, could be achieved by having a modern and more effective nuclear weapons inventory. That policy has been shouted down by leftist and Socialist supporters of the Obama administration in the U.S. Congress.

The endorsed Combat Veterans For Congress who are running for election in 2014 will fight to reverse the current U.S. Nuclear Weapons policy that is putting the nation at great risk–please give them your support.

INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY
September 12, 2014

U.S.’ Nuclear Weapons Policy Puts Country At Great Risk

By ROBERT R. MONROE

At the dawn of the nuclear era, when America created its nuclear weapons laboratories (Los Alamos, Livermore and Sandia), one of their primary missions was to avoid technological surprise.

The labs were charged to conduct advanced nuclear weapons research, development and testing of all types so that no adversary could ever take us unawares by producing some new and dangerous types of nuclear weapons.

The labs performed this mission superbly throughout World War II and the five decades of the Cold War. For over half a century our nuclear weapons and related advanced technological capabilities were supreme in the world.

But since 1992, the U.S. government — executive branch and Congress — has actively prevented the labs from doing work of this type. For 23 years Democrats and Republicans, using laws, regulations and denials of funding, progressively restricted the labs from taking any of these needed actions.

Lab scientists have not been able to even think about new weapons, exploratory work has ceased to exist and the high-priority mission of avoiding technological surprise has been closed down.

These grave mistakes resulted from the simplistic belief that they would help prevent nuclear proliferation. Wiser voices, making the obvious point that true national security — and effective prevention of nuclear proliferation — lay in nuclear weapons strength, were shouted down.
This two-decade rampage has resulted in a staggering list of national disabilities:

  • Most damaging is President Bush’s unilateral 1992 moratorium on underground nuclear testing. It bars the labs from essential testing of our overage nuclear stockpile, prevents development of relevant replacement weapons, denies our scientists use of the scientific method (the basis of all advancement) and leaves us at the mercy of Russia, China and other adversaries.
  • From 1993-2003 Congress explicitly made it illegal to carry out any research or development on low-yield nuclear weapons, which are vital to deter today’s grave new nuclear threats. This established the wrong mindset in a generation of lab scientists which still exists.
  • In 1989 the executive branch shut down the nation’s only facility to produce plutonium pits — the hearts of nuclear weapons — making us the only nuclear weapons state in the world unable to produce nuclear arms. Since then, executive branch fumbling and congressional denials have combined to prevent replacement of this absolutely essential production facility. If a decision were made today, it would still be 10 to 15 years before pit production could start.
  • In 1996 President Clinton signed the extremely damaging Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which denies nuclear weapons testing for all time. The Senate emphatically rejected ratification in 1999, but several adverse effects of the signing remain and President Obama is determined to get it ratified. The CTBT has an overpoweringly adverse effect on the labs.
  • In 2003 the executive branch belatedly proposed three important new nuclear weapons programs. The Advanced Concepts Initiative would have enabled the labs to commence research and development on advanced nukes. The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator program would have met the mushrooming threat of hard, deeply buried targets. The Enhanced Test Readiness program would have enabled the president, in a national emergency, to conduct an underground test within one to two years, rather than the current three to five. Congress delayed, then killed, all three programs.
  • In 2005 the Reliable Replacement Warhead program was proposed. Because it had no new military capabilities, it gained fragile bipartisan support. However, Congress soon backwatered on it, and Obama killed it in 2009 as not befitting his “world without nuclear weapons” vision.
  • The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, which established the overall nuclear policy of the current administration, provided the blueprint for U.S. nuclear weakness, a stark reversal from the role of U.S. nuclear weapons strength that had been established and maintained by 12 Presidents (six Democrats, six Republicans) throughout the prior seven decades.
  • The urgently needed modernization program for the labs and America’s nuclear weapons infrastructure, formally agreed to by Obama in return for Senate approval of New START treaty ratification in 2010, has been progressively dismantled by both branches ever since.

These eight actions — and many others — by our national leadership have emasculated the labs’ ability to protect us from technological surprise in nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, for two decades Russia has been following exactly the opposite course. Its nuclear weapons labs have focused on low-yield weapons research, design, testing and production. It’s pursued advanced concepts, fifth-generation weapons and greater use of fusion and less of fission (possibly achieving pure fusion).

Such weapons might well emit only neutrons and gamma rays, and their tactics of use would be ones we’ve never seen. Furthermore, Russia’s new strategy calls for early use of nuclear weapons in all conflicts, large and small.

America’s current nuclear weapons course is one of grave risk. Our policy documents emphasize that “nuclear stability” must be our goal, yet the technological surprise we are encouraging by our actions is the antithesis of stability. We must return to a policy of nuclear strength.

ABOUT ROBERT R. MONROE

Robert R. Monroe is a retired Navy Vice Admiral and former director of the Defense Nuclear Agency.

Scarier than Global Warming: Capitalism vs. Climate

this changes everything klein

This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate by Naomi Klein, Simon & Schuster.

“The most important book yet from the author of the international bestseller The Shock Doctrine, a brilliant explanation of why the climate crisis challenges us to abandon the core “free market” ideology of our time, restructure the global economy, and remake our political systems.” (Amazon.com)

“This is the best book about climate change in a very long time—in large part because it’s about much more. It sets the most important crisis in human history in the context of our other ongoing traumas, reminding us just how much the powers-that-be depend on the power of coal, gas and oil. And that in turn should give us hope, because it means the fight for a just world is the same as the fight for a livable one.” (Bill McKibben, author of The End of Nature and co-founder of 350.org)

“Journalist Klein is a resolute investigator into the dark side of unchecked capitalism. . . . This comprehensive, sure-to-be controversial inquiry, one of the most thorough, eloquent, and enlightening books yet on this urgent and overwhelming subject—alongside works by Bill McKibben, Elizabeth Kolbert, and Diane Ackerman—provides the evidence and the reasoning we need to help us shift to a ‘worldview based on regeneration and renewal rather than domination and depletion.’” (Booklist (starred review))

Well, there you go. Saving the climate (from what?) will be easy. Who ARE these people? Bill McKibben is the founder and leader of a group called 350.org, whose crusade is to decrease the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million by volume (ppmv). That’s what it was in 1988, when Dr. James Hansen testified to a Senate subcommittee that anything higher would lead to catastrophic climate change. It’s presently 400 ppmv and going up with each new coal-fired generator China and India bring on line, about one per week. Klein is a board member of 350.org. Would you be surprised to learn she comes from a family of communists? Needless to say, she has no scientific training, but she almost completed a degree in journalism. Almost.

Many of us who recognize there is no scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming (AGW), let alone catastrophic AGW (CAGW) have suspected it’s a club to attack capitalism and Western prosperity. Ms. Klein deserves credit – I suppose – for making this quite clear. Her previous books simply attacked capitalism, per se; this one seeks additional acolytes in the holy name of “saving the Earth.” Want more from Ms. Klein? Don’t buy the book; it has only one message, which you can read in Britain’s Guardian newspaper.

So why has Ms. Klein written a new book, pouring the old wine of anti-Capitalism into the frayed wineskin of Environmentalism? The cynical suspect an attempt to capitalize (yes, pun intentional) on the UN’s Climate Summit  (23 Sept) and the People’s Climate March on Sunday, 21 Sept.

The list of attendees is notable: Ban Ki-Moon, Barack Hussein Obama, John F. Kerry, Gina McCarthy, the President of Zimbabwe, Naomi Klein, Bill McKibben, and thousands of other morons.

The list of NON-attendees is even more notable: President of China Xi Jinping, Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi, Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel, Prime Minister of Australia Tony Abbott, Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Japan Abe. Merkel, whose “green” country is building 28 new coal-fired electricity generators, has a new problem; Italy is forecast to go broke in two years, and France (with the EU’s only Socialist President) is soon to follow.  Zimbabwe has already announced it will need $10 billion to wage the good fight against climate change. You should resist any cynical thought that Zimbabwe knows a sucker (see attendee list above) when it sees one; Zimbabwe’s request is a pittance in the “entirely affordable” effort. $4 trillion will do it easily.

The “climate change” fraud, and the money to keep it going, is a difficult line to walk. It has to always be “the last possible minute to save the planet.” If the fraudsters were to admit we have another twenty years to gradually reduce our greenhouse emissions, government might cut back on next-year’s financing. On the other hand, if it’s already too late, they might cut back the financing altogether. Can’t have that either. You’ll be surprised to hear the latest estimate from Lord Stern is that we still have 15 more years to get the problem under control. Whew! Glad to hear that!

I guess I should stop and assure you (and Dr. Swier) I am not making any of this up. Meanwhile, in the real world (not that of Ban Ki-Moon and Naomi Klein):

antarctic.seaice.color.000.thumbThe extent of sea ice around Antarctica is at a new record high, 7.6 million sq miles or 20.0 million sq kilometers (according to ABC News, Australia). That’s three times the area of Australia, and twice the area of the contiguous USA. This is the third year in a row of a new record high.

We’re nearing the Solstice, Fall in the Northern Hemisphere, Spring in the Southern. Record high ice extent has more effect in the sunlit hemisphere (Spring, Summer) than in the dark (Fall, Winter), because it reflects sunlight, that would otherwise warm the ocean. One way to change Earth’s temperature is to change the albedo of the Earth. A change of Earth’s albedo caused by increasing or decreasing ice and snow cover meets that criterion. Incidentally, there are people suggesting spraying sulfuric aerosols into the stratosphere – in order to stop CAGW.

The interesting thing about increasing ice and snow is that this is one of the few positive feedbacks in the climate system. Increased albedo due to ice and snow causes a temperature decrease, leading to more ice and snow, causing a further temperature decrease, leading to more ice and snow, and so to a cascade of colder conditions. At some point, the process becomes a runaway. I wonder how close we are?

Well, as you see in the picture, the tip of the Palmer Peninsula, the northernmost point of Antarctica, is about 60 degrees South. It looks like the sea ice fills the 60 degree circle of latitude. It’s never done that before – that we know of.

And in the Northern Hemisphere, Arctic sea ice is back to normal, in spite of “forecasts” by Al Gore and many, many others that the Arctic would be ice free this Summer.

Perhaps the most worrisome event is the continuing outpouring of molten lava from Bardarbunga volcano in Iceland. Volcanologists are beginning to compare it to the 1783-1784 eruption of Laki, which killed  20,000 farm laborers in England in the Summer of 1783. How? The sulfurous fumes from Laki mixed with moisture in the lungs of outdoor workers, burning them with sulfuric acid.  In all, it’s estimated Laki killed six million people globally, including one-fourth of the population of Iceland. It was followed by

the longest period of sub-zero temperatures in New England, the icing-over of Chesapeake Bay, and freezing of the Mississippi at New Orleans. The smell of sulfur is becoming apparent already in Norway.

But, as we all know, thanks to Naomi Klein and John Kerry, warming is the thing to worry about.

RELATED ARTICLE: Capitalism in crosshairs as Socialism promoted at opening event of People’s Climate March

Florida: GOP County Chairs unanimously vote to Oppose Pot Amendment

Saying it is filled with loopholes that would allow widespread access to pot, Republican county chairs voted unanimously Friday to oppose a proposed constitutional amendment that would legalize medical marijuana.

Critics of the November ballot initiative, backed heavily by attorney and Charlie Crist supporter John B. Morgan, of Morgan & Morgan law firm, say the measure is so broadly written that it would allow people who don’t truly need medical marijuana to get it.

Others question the medicinal value of the drug.

“I do not want to see Florida turned into the pot capital of the world,” said Tony Ledbetter, Chairman of the Volusia County party.

The chairs also voted to oppose a proposed conservation amendment that would dedicate a share of real-estate tax revenues to efforts such as buying and preserving land.

Opponents say that measure would endanger property rights and tie the hands of the Legislature when lawmakers craft the state budget.

Here is the latest video ad featuring John (for the reefer) Morgan released by VoteNoOn2:

charlie-crist-john-morgan-in-florida-trend

Charlie Crist with John B. Morgan.

Ana Cruz, former executive director of the Florida Democratic Party, said, “I wish that it didn’t take medical marijuana on the ballot to motivate our young voters. But listen, we’ll take it any way we can get it.”

Ben Pollara, a Democratic fundraiser and campaign manager for the United for Care group, stated, “We want to be able to have our stereotypical, lazy pothead voters to be able to vote from their couch.”

As American essayist and novelist Charles Dudley Warner wrote, “Politics makes strange bedfellows.” In this case marijuana makes strange bedfellows.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Welfare Recipients Can Use Debit Cards for Marijuana
Black market boom lays bare a social divide in Colorado’s marijuana market | The Guardian
Parents Warn Against Synthetic Marijuana After 19-Year-Old Son Dies | KTLA
New marijuana drug ‘Wax’ looks and feels like lip balm – DC News FOX 5 DC WTTG
Man Allegedly Shoots Teen Over Stealing Marijuana – Huffington Post
Two Teens Arrested for Marijuana Burglary
Porterville, CA teens busted for drugs at school with intent to sell, cops say – ABC News
Girl eats father’s marijuana-laced bar – AP

No One Is Born Gay

If there were reputable scientific evidence that some people were born homosexual, I would have no problem accepting this. After all, my theology tells me that as human beings, we are all created in God’s image and yet we are a fallen race, and so all of us carry aspects of that fallen nature to the core of our being, and that could theoretically include homosexuality.

But the fact is that there is simply no reputable scientific evidence that anyone is born gay. As stated by gay activist and history professor John D’Emilio:

“‘Born gay’ is an idea with a large constituency, LGBT and otherwise. It’s an idea designed to allay the ingrained fears of a homophobic society and the internalized fears of gays, lesbians and bisexuals. What’s most amazing to me about the ‘born gay’ phenomenon is that the scientific evidence for it is thin as a reed, yet it doesn’t matter. It’s an idea with such social utility that one doesn’t need much evidence in order to make it attractive and credible.”

In other words, because the “born gay” idea has proved so useful, the fact that there’s virtually no scientific support for the theory hardly matters. It’s an idea that has worked wonders for gay activists and their allies.

Born "Gay"? Columbia Professor and homosexual historian John D'Emilio

As noted years ago by gay scientist Simon LeVay, “There [was] a survey in The New York Times that broke down people on the basis of whether they thought gays and lesbians were born that way or whether it was a lifestyle choice. Across the board, those who thought gays and lesbians were born that way were more liberal and gay friendly.”

And so, the argument goes, “If I’m born this way, how can my attractions be wrong? And if I’m born this way, how can you expect me to change?”

Of course, even if no one is born gay, that doesn’t mean that homosexual attractions are not deeply rooted. In most cases, those feelings are very deeply rooted to the point that many gay men and women truly believe they were born gay.

And even if no one is born gay, that doesn’t mean that homosexual attractions are easily changed. In most cases, they are not.

But why base a so-called civil-rights movement on lies? Why not tell the truth?

One of the most gay-friendly professional organizations in our country is the American Psychological Association, and yet even the APA states that, “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation.”

Similarly, in England, the pro-gay Royal College of Psychiatrists recently backtracked on an earlier statement that homosexuality was biologically determined, now saying that “sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors.” And while they stated clearly their belief that homosexuality was not a mental disorder and that it should be accepted, they added, “It is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable or might not vary to some extent in a person’s life.”

That’s why psychiatrist Nathaniel S. Lehrman, former chairperson of the Task Force on Religion and Mental Health said in 2005, “Researchers now openly admit that after searching for more than 20 years, they are still unable to find the ‘gay gene’” (in theJournal of American Physicians and Surgeons).

Why then do we constantly hear about people being born gay? First, it has worked wonders for gay activism; second, many gays and lesbians believe it to be true, since as far back as they can remember, they felt that they were different.

But political expediency and personal feelings do not change the facts, and those facts remain the same: There is no clear scientific evidence that anyone is born gay

According to lesbian researcher Lisa Diamond, “The queer community has been obsessed with cultivating the idea that we all have fixed sexual identities. We’ve crafted terrific narratives and political platforms based on the notions that all gays are ‘born that way.’ But what if sexuality is more complex? What if biology actually intersects with environment, time, culture and context? Could we possibly be more fluid than we’ve supposed?”

Camille Paglia, a social critic, academic, feminist and lesbian, was even more blunt, famously stating in her book Vamps and Tramps, “Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction. … No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous … homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.”

Paglia also asked, “Is the gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay? Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible.”

Remarkably, when a school chaplain in Tasmania, Australia, posted Paglia’s opinion on social media, there was an outcry against him, causing him to issue a public apology: “I’ve made a mistake and learnt from it. I’m deeply sorry for any offence I’ve caused. I was very careless in posting that image for discussion. I will work with my employers to ensure there is no repeat.”

Despite this apology, he was still fired—and the organization he worked for was Christian! That is how toxic today’s climate has become, and yet this chaplain simply posted the accurate reflections of a lesbian academic. How could this be considered hateful or bigoted?

Again, this does not mean that same-sex attractions and desires are not deeply roo999ted in some people’s lives, nor does it mean that they chose to be gay. (You can choose to act on your attractions but that doesn’t mean you chose to have the attractions.)

It simply means that one of the major gay-activist talking points, one that has even infiltrated parts of the church, is based on lies, not truth.

It’s time we speak the truth in love. Lies never help anyone in the long run.

dr_michael_brown_thumbnail-233x300

Dr. Michael Brown

ABOUT DR. MICHAEL BROWN

Michael Brown is author of Can You Be Gay and Christian? Responding With Love and Truth to Questions About Homosexuality and host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire on the Salem Radio Network. He is also president of FIRE School of Ministry and director of the Coalition of Conscience. Follow him at AskDrBrown on Facebook or at @drmichaellbrown on Twitter.

EDITORS NOTE: This column by Dr. Michael Brown is reprinted from his “Line of Fire” column at Charisma News.

A Different Opinion on Smart Meter “Phobia”

Recently someone sent me James Tracy’s blog on an editorial written by the Palm Beach PostSmart Media Phobia Sad, But Don’t Cut Power” regarding FP&L’s smart meters. The Palm Beach Post circulation covers the area for which FP&L maintains its headquarters. Essentially the editors feel that the Internet is a blessing and a curse because people, other than them, don’t know how to interpret data and they are reading things other than the mainstream media and are being “misinformed”. We apparently repeat these misunderstandings until they sound like “fact”.

The editorial goes on to repeat industry propaganda about how one can be continually exposed to smart meters for 375 years and that would equate to a 15-minute cell phone call. Dr. Tracy, in his blog post, details all the science he has previously provided FP&L that refutes such nonsense. I decided to call out the Palm Beach Post on other false information in their Op-Ed. Most likely they won’t print it, but luckily we have alternative media to by-pass their censorship power.

My response sent to the Palm Beach Post editorial was as follows.

Editors of the Palm Beach Post:

I am the lead petitioner in the action against the Florida Power & Light (FP&L) smart meter opt out fees currently before the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC). I read your editorial published September 4, 2014 and shook my head, as it is nothing but another corporate propaganda piece that spreads misinformation.

First, I take exception to the insinuation that I suffer from “lack of training to parse data”. I am a CPA and trained auditor. I know how to research, source and interpret data. I also have a background in the regulatory process having worked 11 years for a telephone company. I have handled complicated transactions such as the AT&T divestiture to the planning and implementation of Sarbanes – Oxley regulations for a multi-billion dollar company. I have spent about 10 hours per day, 5 days a week for two years reading every governmental and industry report on the smart grid and smart meters. My computer is now overloaded with downloads.

Second, it is not a fact that “the vast majority of FP&L’s approximately 4.6 million customers have “adopted the new technology without a second thought”. The truth is the vast majorities don’t even know they have a smart meter or what it does differently. But what is true is that the claims of the smart meter giving people information to help manage their energy are a lie, as the current information provided to customers is useless. This can be supported by FP&L’s disclosure that the vast majority of customers have yet to even access their silly Energy Dashboard. But I am sure the editors of this paper do so every day, correct?

Third, the biggest lie in your is this statement “The facts are clear: Smart meters lower everyone’s utility bills by reducing the need for trucks, fuel, and meter readers. They reduce the length and extent of power outages. They pose no credible threat to health.”

Smart meters do not reduce the length and extent of power outages – smart technologies (sensors on equipment like transformers and substations and smart switches on feeders) do provide this benefit.

Regarding your statements of “credible threat to health”, where have we heard that phrase before? Ah, yes, the tobacco industry used that phrase for decades quite successfully, didn’t they? Now let’s look at the credibility of FP&L’s lead consultant on smart meter health, Dr. Peter Valberg. He claims that there is no “credible” science that shows RF harm. Your readers should know that he also testified on behalf of Phillip Morris in their light cigarettes deceptive marketing case. His testimony essentially stated that light cigarettes were just not being smoked properly, and also that the tobacco studies performed by Philip Morris were consistent” with what was known to the outside scientific community. No deception, right? How “credible” is this guy? Your readers can decide but they should also do an internet search on the BioInitiative Report before they make their decision.

But most importantly, smart meters have not lowered your bills – not one penny – they have actually increased them. Let me count the ways:

First, the old meters had a net book value (NBV) of $75 million and an estimated useful life of approximately 36 years. FP&L wrote off $101 million (includes cost of removal) when they threw the perfectly operational old meters in the garbage. The annual depreciation charges for these meters were around $7 million per year ($249 Million Gross value/36 yrs). The approximate annual return on investment FP&L received on the NBV of $75 million, using 9.48% pre-tax cost of capital was $7 million.

Contrast that to now. The smart meter project capital is $645 million with an estimated useful life of 20 years (and if you believe the 20 yr life, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you). This equates to depreciation charges of about $32 million per year ($645M/20yrs). The return on investment FP&L will earn on this new smart meter capital will be about $61 million per year ($645M at 9.48%), decreasing by about $3 million each year to reflect the lower NBV from depreciation.

Second, FP&L current rates are based on a 2013 test year and the 2012 rate case settlement agreement keeps the rates the same until at least 2017. The 2013 test year reflects an overall net Operations & Maintenance (O&M) cost of $3.4 million for the smart meter project. (Funny, in 2009 they estimated that the year 2013 would produce a net O&M savings of $20 million. I guess the project is overrunning its budget.) FP&L recently testified that once the project was completed in 2013 there would be about $40 million annual net savings in O&M.

When rate case settlements are made they are made for a period of time. Each party looks at that period of time to determine if anything needs to be considered and factored in before the final settlement is agreed to and finalized. FP&L raised its hand high, saying, look over here, I have new plants coming on line in these outer years and we need to raise rates to recover our investment and such was granted. But did FP&L raise their hand or did the FPSC insist that the smart meter savings of $40 million, which would start to be realized during that period, also be accounted for? No. FP&L was not required to reduce the rates in the outer years to reflect the savings.

Third, lets not forget to count all the new costs that are being incurred that did not exist with those old analog meters. Now you have communication costs to send the data wirelessly back to FP&L, cyber-security costs, software license and maintenance fees, data storage costs, big data consultants, settlements on fires and property damage, more equipment to be damaged in storms and the list goes on.

So Palm Beach Editorial Board, please disclose to your readers your facts to support your claim that smart meters have lowered our utility bills. The miscellaneous tariffs for all these activities – service connects/disconnects, reconnects for non-payment – are EXACTLY the same as they were when FP&L didn’t have smart meters. FP&L’s 2013 test year also included significant manual meter-reading costs as they still had over 800 thousand meters left to install in their assumptions and those costs are still baked into our current rates.

Your readers can decide for themselves, if FP&L, who made NO disclosure in their rate case settlement agreement that they planned to file these smart meter opt out tariffs (despite smart meters being an issue in the rate case), is deserving of an additional $2 million a year in revenue from these customers when they are keeping the $40 million in savings for three years and overcharging smart meter customers for truck rolls they are no longer performing. Is FP&L violating the rate case settlement agreement by trying to change rates for services already provided at the date of that agreement?

From my vantage point – if they are deserving of the $2 million in additional revenue because the project is over and we need to recognize a new ‘cost of service” – then it is only fair to re-price all activities affected by this fact and reduce the rates for all customers by $40-45 million.

There is no financial payback for me as I have sunk tens of thousand of dollars into this effort and countless unpaid hours of time. I do so for two reasons – 1) the many “Friedman’s out there who have no voice and are being harmed by this product and 2) to expose the illegal coordination and fraud/deception that took place between FP&L and FPSC as it pertains to this project.

The documented audit trail of deception is as long as the distance from my house in Venice to Tallahassee. Quite frankly, the conduct of our FPSC that I discovered on this journey is more disturbing than FP&L’s. I will take that item up with our state legislators when they return to Tallahassee for the next session.

An Economist’s Bad Climate Advice

If I need my car repaired, I do not take it to a dentist. If I am seeking advice about the climate I check out what climatologists and meteorologists are saying, at least those who have not sold their souls to the global warming/climate change hoax.

On September 3rd the Wall Street Journal published a commentary by Edward P. Lazear titled “The Climate Change Agenda Needs to Adapt to Reality: Limiting carbon emissions won’t work. Better to begin adjusting to a warming world.”

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!  It’s cooling, not warming.

Apparently Mr. Lazear is unaware that the Earth has been in a cooling cycle for seventeen years. A visit to ClimateDepot.com or a subscription to the Heartland Institute’s monthly Climate & Environmental News or a copy of its policy studies, “Climate Change Reconsidered”, would help him understand why he’s wrong. Check out www.climatechangedispatch.com as well for the latest commentaries.

Perhaps his error should be forgiven because Mr. Lazear is an economist. He was the chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors (2006-09) and head of the White House Committee on the Economics of Climate Change (2007-08). Presently he is a professor at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business and a Hoover Institution fellow.

He’s not a fool, but like a lot of academics who lack a background in science, he has been fooled by the legion of global warming/climate change charlatans from Al Gore through the ranks of organizations such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that depend on maintaining the hoax.

Mr. Lazear has fallen for the greatest lie ever; the assertion that greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, are warming the Earth. The hoaxers are calling the past seventeen years “a pause” in warming, but it is actually an indicator that the Earth is on the cusp of the next ice age. The period in between ice ages is calculated at 11,500 years and we are at the end of the current interglacial period.

“The Obama administration is instituting a variety of far-reaching policies to reduce carbon emissions and mitigate climate change. Are any of these capable of making a difference”, asked Mr. Lazear. “Simple arithmetic suggests not.” Up to this point I was very pleased with his conclusion, but then he wrote “Given this reality, we would be wise to consider strategies that complement and may be more effective than mitigation—namely, adaptation.”

Humans have been adapting to the climate—the weather—since they emerged as homo sapiens about 195,000 years ago.

What Mr. Lazear wants the U.S, to do is limit “carbon emissions” but admits that “The economics also work against a major transformation in the technology of producing power, either mobile or stationary. Coal is cheap. Natural gas is becoming even cheaper.”

The primary flaw in his commentary is simply that more carbon dioxide is a good thing. As the primary gas utilized by all vegetation, more means greater crop yields and healthier forests. What carbon dioxide doesn’t do is “trap” heat long enough to lower the Earth’s temperature. It represents a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere.

The Earth is not a greenhouse with a glass roof. The amount of heat in the atmosphere is totally dependent on the amount of heat the Sun produces. In its current cycle, it is producing less.

“Carbon math,” wrote Mr. Lazear, “makes clear that without major effort and a good bit of luck, we are unlikely to control the growth of emissions enough to meet the standards that many climate scientists suggest are necessary.” Those scientists are usually on college or university faculties where securing federal and other grants to study a warming that is not occurring leads to urging limits on carbon dioxide. Others are just huge liars who, like Al Gore, have been making predictions of warming that have not and are not coming true.

There’s another reason why there will be more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It involves two of the most swiftly developing nations in the world, China and India, both of whom are building coal-fired plants to generate electricity as fast as they can. This is happening while the Environmental Protection Agency has been engaged in an all-out war on coal that has closed several hundred U.S. plants. If an especially cold winter occurs, the demand for electricity to warm homes and other facilities may overload a system that has been diminished in scope.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the driving force behind the global warming hoax. It is holding a climate change summit on September 23. Guess who won’t be attending? Chinese president Xi Jinping, India’s prime minister, Narenda Modi, and for good measure, Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel. Others whose leaders will not be attending include Canada, Japan, and Russia.

In typical fashion, always predicting climate conditions decades from now, the United Nations, according to a report in The Guardian, “is warning of floods, storms and searing heat from Arizona to Zambia within four decades, as part of a series of imagined weather forecasts” to publicize the climate summit.

All of the forecasts made by a legion of climate charlatans in the 1980s and 1990s turned out to be WRONG.

You cannot trust the UN’s World Meteorological Organization which like the IPCC is just part of a vast matrix of groups that have been so severely corrupted by the global warming/climate change hoax that one must exercise caution when hearing its forecasts. If they are for anything beyond two weeks hence, you would be wise to be dubious.

Mr. Lazear is just one of many, often with distinguished careers in other fields than meteorology or climatology, who have bought into the hoax and who declaim the need to reduce carbon dioxide. He’s wrong. The others are wrong.

And you need to educate yourself to avoid being afflicted by various government policies intended to advance the hoax. To start with, do not vote for any politician who talks of global warming/climate change or uses the term “sustainability.”

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Shaking, Quaking, and Freezing

Have you noticed how much earthquake and volcanic activity has been occurring lately?

There was a major earthquake in Napa, California on Sunday, August 24th as well as considerable volcanic activity from Iceland to Papua, New Guinea. August was also a month that set records for colder U.S. temperatures.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), there were some 1,097 “low max” temperature records broken in the U.S. between August 1 and August 23, meaning that the maximum temperature during that time period was the lowest it has ever been. NOAA reported that summer across much of the U.S. has been colder than normal.

Most of us, after decades of global warming predictions that became more and more absurd, rising sea levels drowning Manhattan and Miami, an upsurge in hurricanes, forest fires, and every other calamity, have concluded that none of these things have happened in the volume or intensity predicted. In the 70s we were told the Earth would get colder. In the 80’s and 90’s we were told it would get warmer.

A new book is advising us to prepare for a serious cold spell that is not only going to arrive in twenty to thirty years, but will likely stay around to become the next ice age. This time, though, the prediction is based on well-established climate cycles and the behavior of the Sun that was known as far back as Galileo’s day.

The new “normal” is colder weather and this is because the Sun’s sunspot activity has been in a cyclical decline since about 1998, producing the latest cooling cycle for the Earth.

John Casey

John Casey, author, lecturer and rocket scientist.

In combination with the earthquakes and volcanic activity, says John L. Casey’s new book, “Dark Winter: How the Sun is Causing a 30-Year Cold Spell” ($24.95, Humanix Books, Boca Raton, FL) what we’re really looking at is a repeat of the Dalton Minimum, a solar sunspot minimum that occurred between 1793 and 1830. His earlier book, “Cold Sun” addressed this cyclical phenomenon.

Casey asks “Will we also experience volcanic activity that will add to the solar cooling?” and the answer, given the fifty active volcanoes around the world, is that “We should expect to deal with multiple geological disasters, including volcanoes and earthquakes, during the next solar hibernation.” We have in fact already entered that “hibernation.”

Casey is the president of the Space and Science Research Corporation. It specializes in independent research regarding the coming decades of cold weather. For thirty-five years Casey has been active in science and high tech industries. He has been a national space policy advisor to the White House and Congress, and a former space shuttle engineer, consultant to NASA headquarters.

Casey has formulated a “Bicentennial Cycle of 206 years correlated with near 100 percent accuracy to every major cold-temperature period of the past 1,200 years.” His Theory of “Relational Cycles of Solar Activity” accounts for its effects and those of other solar cycles.

He is not the first scientist to recognize the relationship of diminished sunspot activity and cooling cycles, but he is the first to have synthesized the earlier work of others who made comparable observations. His Relational Cycles theory, however, is more specific than preceding ones, pegging the arrival of significant global cold climate to begin as early as 2024 or as late as 2036. “My math says 2031” says Casey.

Earth Ice AgeCasey’s book is a prediction of a coming ice age that will have devastating effects for all life on Earth, but my readers know I have been writing about this for several years based on Robert W. Felix’s book, “Not By Fire, But By Ice” ($15.95, Sugarhouse Publishing, Bellevue, WA). I have frequently referenced his website http://iceagenow.info, for its daily updates on cold weather events, records established and broken, and reports on volcanic and earthquake activity around the world.

Before I proceed, the reader should contemplate the fact that not one single child entering or returning to school this year has ever lived in a period of “global warming.” The cooling cycle began around 1997.

You do not need to be a meteorologist to know nothing humans do affects or alters the weather. The claim that “greenhouse gases” such as carbon dioxide are making the Earth warmer is false.

We have been experiencing this as the Earth has cooled, along with increased volcanic activity and earthquakes, and yet on September 23rd the United Nations will hold a “Climate Change Summit” that will be attended by more than a hundred of the world’s presidents and prime ministers. They will continue the greatest international scientific fraud ever perpetrated.

Despite the cooling cycle that is occurring and which will grow in intensity, the U.S. government has devoted billions to global warming research and, as Casey notes, “not one research dollar has been dedicated to the science and planning needed for the United Sates to be prepared for the only climate change that we can expect—a long and potentially dangerous cold climate!”

The U.S. is not taking the steps necessary for the cold that is coming. It has not only failed to encourage the use of our multi-generational reserves of coal, the Obama administration has declared “war” on it, putting several hundred plants out of business, reducing the amount of electricity the nation needs now and will require. Power plants and refineries cannot be built overnight and the lack of them will severely impact our lives and the economy.

AA - Obama Says Planet is Warming

Despite thousands of miles of pipelines that safely distribute oil and natural gas, Obama has refused to permit a new one, Keystone XL, for oil to be shipped to gulf state refineries from Canada. Railroad cars needed to transport food crops in a timely manner are being diverted to transport oil. No new nuclear plants are being built on a scale that will be needed. The “grid” that distributes electricity nationwide is in vital need of repair and expansion.

Cold weather will reduce the amount of crops needed to feed the nation’s human population and the stocks of cattle, pigs, sheep, and chickens upon which we depend. This will happen here and worldwide. Famine will be rampant. In countless ways ours and worldwide societies that depend on all manner of technology will be impacted.

Nations and people will fail to prepare for what is coming because (1) they have been deceived by the global warming hoax and (2) we will be leaving behind one of the longest climate cycles other than an ice age, the interglacial warm period. Casey notes that “For the past 11,000 years, we have been living in one of these rare interglacial periods, called the Holocene warm period.”

What we call civilization is the result of the Holocene warm period and, without it, civilization and a global population nearing or surpassing eight billion will be largely decimated as the next, entirely predictable, ice age occurs.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

‘The Chinafication of America’

New York Times: ‘U.S. seeking climate deal that would skirt Senate’: ‘Under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions…American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.’

Morano: ‘Obama is taking a page from China’s government and is seeking to bypass democracy’s ‘very detrimental’ hurdles and just impose a new UN treaty on Americans’ By:  – Climate Depot

August 27, 2014 12:19 PM

Marc Morano statement on Obama bypassing Senate ratification of UN climate ‘deal’. Morano is publisher of Climate Depot, former staff of U.S. Senate Environment  & Public Works Committee and producing and writing the new global warming documentary ‘Climate Hustle.’

Morano: “This is the Chinafication of America. Many global warming activists and the UN have previously praised China’s ability to impose climate and energy regulations without the messiness of democracy.

See: < href=”http://climatedepot.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=87b74a936c723115dfa298cf3&id=d8f230ce9e&e=d3a947e3d3″ target=”_blank”>NYT’s Friedman lauds China’s eco-policies: ‘One party can just impose politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward’

UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres laments U.S. democracy is ‘very detrimental’ in war on global warming — Lauds one-party ruled China for ‘doing it right’ on climate change

President Obama is taking a page from China’s government and is seeking to bypass democracy’s ‘very detrimental’ hurdles and just impose a new UN treaty on Americans. The Administration with both its EPA climate regulations (no climate impact)and the UN treaty has essentially declared ‘We don’t need no stinkin legislature.’

Sec. of State John Kerry is pushing the hardest for a UN agreement. See: Flashback NYT: John Kerry ‘hopes to use his position as secretary of state to achieve a legacy on global warming that has long eluded him’

We have known for years that the Obama administration was seeking no Senate ratification. See: Flashback 2009: Chris Horner: Kyoto II as Congressional-Executive Agreement: The Emerging Strategy?

The American people will now face an increasingly EPA centrally planned domestic energy economy and one now dictated from the United Nations without the Senate’s consent. The U.S. is currently heading to an energy deprived future. See: Winter blackouts could hit Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, regional grid operator warns

And we may end up like our European counterparts: See: Flashback 2011: We’re All North Koreans Now: ‘Era of Constant Electricity at Home is Ending, says UK power chief’ — ‘Families would have to get used to only using power when it was available’

Of course, eliminating plentiful energy is what the Obama administration officials have stated is their goal. See: Flashback 1975: John Holdren Says Real Threat to USA Is Cheap Energy: ‘The U.S.is threatened far more by the hazards of too much energy, too soon, than by the hazards of too little energy, too late.’

All of this comes at a time when the evidence continues to show that man-made global warming claims are failing. Global temperatures have flat-lined for nearly 18 years (with at least 38 excuses offered).

Sea level rise has decelerated. Arctic summer sea ice may hit a decade high in 2014. (Sorry John Holdren, looks like your Arctic warnings about missing winter sea ice is still far off): Antarctica sea ice is at record expansionExtreme weather is at or near historic lows, declining trends or no trends in tornadoeswild fires, droughts and floods.

But despite all of this, the UN IPCC’s new report will claim its worse than we thought – by continuing to make scarier and scarier predictions of 50 to 100 years from now. See: Geologist Rebuts Media-Hyped Draft Of New UN IPCC Report As ‘Nonsense Totally Contrary To Real Evidence’

When current reality fails to alarm, just make scarier and scarier predictions and claim its worse than we thought because our predictions are now more alarming.”

End Morano statement.

Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels of Cato Institute: The President simply doesn’t care about the legislative branch when it comes to climate regulations.  He feels that the Supreme Court empowered him in Mass. v. EPA.  He lost the House over cap and trade in 2010 so what does it matter if the voters take it out on the Senate in 2014?  Besides, the electoral demographics in the Senate look as bad for the Repos in 2016 as they do for the Demos this year.  So they will just be out for two years anyway.

If that’s all cold and calculating, it is.  Welcome to Washington, where, with regard to climate change, we have a King, unless (fat chance) someone with standing can convince the courts to reign him in.” Flashback 2009: Chris Horner: Kyoto II as Congressional-Executive Agreement: The Emerging Strategy?Flashback: CEI’s Myron Ebell: ‘In the past, rulers who act as if the law does not apply to them were called tyrants’ – Obama’s UN climate agreement doesn’t need congressional approvalFlashback Feb. 2014: Obama’s UN climate agreement doesn’t need congressional approval

Related Links:

Flashback: ‘John Kerry is steering the Obama administration’s international focus to embarrassingly bad man-made climate fears’

Flashback NYT: John Kerry ‘hopes to use his position as secretary of state to achieve a legacy on global warming that has long eluded him’

Study: Global climate deal won’t stop dangerous warming: ‘Climate negotiators may need to reframe their work the 2 degree goal just doesn’t appear to be achievable, no matter how strong the progress made in Paris next year,’ said fellow Point Carbon analyst Ashley Lawson.

Kyoto II climate treaty coming in 2015 — And taxpayers are paying environmental groups to design it!

Coral Davenport and Christiana Figueres assure us ‘there’s no such thing as the U.N. imposing any regulation’ ; UN officials are just ‘working toward forging a historic, legally binding global-warming treaty’

U.S. Commits to New UN Climate Treaty! U.S. signs onto Brussels G-7 Summit Declaration: ‘We affirm our strong determination to adopt in 2015 a global agreement – a new protocol’

Developing Nations Demand $$$ to support new UN climate treaty: ‘We will want more than the $100bn to agree to a new Paris protocol’

Sec. Kerry challenges climate skeptics at House hearing: If skeptics are wrong and nothing is done, ‘life on the Earth can literally end’

Climate Treaties Like Kyoto Aren’t Coming Back: Ex-UN Climate Chief – ‘Pacts like the Kyoto Protocol, which the U.S. Senate blocked by a 95-0 vote in 1997, are probably a thing of the past’

Follow  on Twitter at @ClimateDepot

Science, Fiction and Extinction #6

6thextinctionI enjoy science, and fiction (science fiction and just fiction), but I like to know how much fiction is in the science fiction I’m reading, and I certainly don’t want any fiction in the science I’m reading. With that caveat in mind, I’d like to comment on, and recommend to you, a book I’m currently reading. I think I understand how much of it is fiction, and there’s a lot of interesting science in it. It’s The 6th Extinction by James Rollins, Harper Collins, 426 pp. I’m recommending it with a little bit of caution, to help you separate the science (lots of it) from the fiction (an important bit).

I’m not going to spoil the mystery of the story by telling you how it comes out. It’s full of an amazing amount of real science, set in some exotic places I never heard of before, buffeting some interesting action figures (“Sigma Force”, Rollins’ scientifically-erudite military elite types) to stop some mad scientists from taking over the world to prevent the extinction of 25% of the world’s animal species by AD 2100 due to destruction of habitat and….climate change. Oh, you weren’t aware a major part of the world’s species are doomed…..DOOMED? Well, it’s a major sub-theme of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) nonsense, intended to appeal to people who think with their emotions.

I put the picture of my little foxy friend in here to make the case that I like animals too, and try to protect them, with money and my vote. Foxes are doing quite well here in Colorado, sponsored by Californians who come here and let their cats run loose. The coyotes are doing well too.

bddigjjfEverybody has heard of the Fifth Extinction; that was 66 million years ago, when something got the dinosaurs, and three out of four other species as well. That’s small potatoes, compared to The Great Dying, the largest extinction event and the one that affected the Earth’s ecology most profoundly. 252 million years ago, as much as 97% of species that leave a fossil record disappeared forever.

The dinosaur extinction is reasonably blamed on a meteor strike into the Yucatan Peninsula, followed by major volcanism. Some paleontologists blame the other extinctions on meteor strikes as well. However, Rollins’ tale of  The 6th Extinction is based on some recent “science” that grows out of CAGW. Like the rest of CAGW, it echoes the liberal theme that humanity is a blight on the Earth, causing overpopulation, habitat destruction, and catastrophic climate change/warming. This theme appeared with Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb in 1968, prophesying worldwide multi-million death by famine in the 1970’s and 1980’s. It hasn’t happened, but Ehrlich is still employed – in academia, of course. Incidentally, one of Ehrlich’s colleagues was John Holdren – now Mr. Obama’s science advisor.

A commendable feature in the book is an Author’s Note explaining some of the science described in the book – real science. Rollins quotes other books on the supposed coming extinction, such as The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History by Elizabeth Kolbert (Henry Holt, 2014), but he doesn’t try to defend the thesis as real science. In his Notes from the Scientific Record, at the beginning, Rollins quotes a recent Duke University study by Stuart Pimm et. al.: The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. As the Washington Post explained:

“Calculating extinction rates can be difficult, in part because no one knows exactly how many species there are,” explained Christine Dell’Amore of National Geographic. Experts have managed to identify at least 1.9 million animal species, and the study reported that there are at least 450,000 types of plants in existence, she added.

Pimm told Dell’Amore that conservationists are able to calculate the extinction rate of those species by tracking how many of them die out each year, similar to the technique used to determine a country’s mortality rate. Based on that approach, the study authors determined that between 100 and 1,000 species were lost per million per year, primarily due to climate change and habitat destruction resulting from human causes.

We don’t know how many species there are… wait, what?

There are, roughly 2 million animal species, and by those numbers, and their extinction rate (~500/million/year), we’re losing 1000 species per year? Really? I’ve heard of the extinction of the Passenger Pigeon, in the early 1900’s, by idiots that simply slaughtered them. And the American Bison was reduced to a few hundred individuals, before their slaughter was stopped. Neither of those was caused by habitat destruction or climate change; just by simple, stupid individual human greed. More recently, with flourishes of “science”, we’re been warned of the possible extinction of the polar bear and the Adelie penguin. Both species are thriving. And, as a general principle, there are more species and greater variety of species in warm climates – think Central Africa and the Amazon Basin – than in cold ones, like the polar regions. Global warming will kill them?

Do species become extinct? Of course; you can GOOGLE “species extinction 2013” and find some. One such website is called Living Along Side Wildlife. Another is a 10-year extinction countdown on the Scientific American blog.

The saddest example is the Western Black Rhinoceros, which has been reduced to about 20 individuals in the wild, due to individuals who kill the animal for its horn, ground up and sold as an aphrodisiac. But that’s not the fault of humanity, nor caused by climate change; that’s the crime of poachers who are killing protected animals in poor countries that don’t have the resources to protect a valuable resource. The list of 2013 extinctions is rather misleading; the ten species listed disappeared as long ago as the 1880’s. It’s certainly not 1000 species in a year…or even 100…or 10. It’s more like a small fraction of one species per year, at most, many due to natural changes – such as predation by other species. NONE have been caused by climate change.

So where does this seemingly serious “science” about extinction come from? Can’t you guess? More garbage from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); specifically, from Working Group 2 of Assessment Report 4 (AR4), issued in 2007. They said:

§4.4.11 Global synthesis including impacts on biodiversity was quite specific. If arming reached 3°C above pre-industrial levels (projected absent serious mitigation) 21-52% of all species were committed to extinction (not necessarily yet extinct) by 2100. This official finding was based on 78 conclusions from 57 peer-reviewed papers on climate change impacts on biodiversity, all listed in WG2 table 4.1. It appears to be overwhelming scientific evidence.

Well, there you go; 3 C (or 5 F) will wipe out a quarter to a half of all species on Earth. 57 peer-reviewed papers on the impact of CAGW on biodiversity tell us so.

This, of course, is the fiction part of Mr. Rollins’ book. Well, if you want to be a New York Times Best Selling author – as it says on the cover – I guess you have to pretend to believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change. And quoting Elizabeth Kolbert – a former NYT columnist – doesn’t hurt. Sigh!

If you’d like to read a serious book on climate and ecology, I recommend Landscapes and Cycles by Jim Steele, ISBN 1490 390189. It’s available from Amazon. Be sure to read Chapter 6, Saving the Large Blue Butterfly – which went “extinct” because its microclimate cooled. The cooling was real; the “extinction” was bogus.

California faces ‘most destructive earthquakes in over 200 years’

According to analysis completed between June 10 and August 5, 2014, by the International Earthquake and Volcano Prediction Center (IEVPC), California has entered its greatest risk period for the most destructive earthquakes in over 200 years.

The IEVPC began in February 2012 and includes some of the international seismic community’s most successful and experienced earthquake prediction experts.

From IEVPC CEO Mr. John L. Casey, “Because of the success achieved in climate prediction and seismic research by the IEVPC’s sister company, the Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC), these leading researchers approached me in late 2011 and asked that I pull their collective talents together to create the world’s best earthquake prediction company.”

Mr. Casey adds further, “Because we had early success in predicting large earthquakes and associated volcanic activity, we recently initiated two new programs. The first was aimed at alerting insurance firms that serve California of an increased risk they face in that state. This was started three months ago. Second we began another test program in July to refine our long range prediction capabilities over the next year.

The Test Program has already posted on line its first test items, what the IEVPC calls “Observations.” Today a California specific “Observation” has been added for the Southern California area including the Baja Peninsula. These observations, instead of predictions, will permit objective, public, independent review of the IEVPC approaches to geophysical event analysis during the coming year of the Test Program.

The special warning regarding California included in this press release is the result of two indications of record quakes coming to the US west Coast.

First, is the strong correlation that has been established between a 206 year climate change cycle discovered by Mr. Casey in 2007 and the largest earthquakes on the planet. These cycles as his research shows, not only accounts for the end of global warming that occurred many years ago, but also shows a very strong correlation with the world wide cold temperature phase of the 206 year cycle and the largest most destructive earthquakes. This cold phase called a “solar hibernation” by the SSRC, has been well documented and analyzed at the SSRC.

The last time a solar hibernation struck was between 1793 and 1830, the so-called Dalton Minimum. It was a time which saw the largest ever series of earthquakes recorded in the United States as well as the largest ever recorded volcanic eruption on Earth.

Mr. Casey reiterates this general geophysical threat to the planet.

“If this 206 year solar cycle behaves as it did before, then there is no doubt that we are in for our worst ever earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. The SSRC prediction for the bottom of the cold phase will see the worst from the 2020’s through the 2030’s. However, it may be this cycle is getting off to an early powerful start as a result of the end of global warming years ago and the rapid drop in global temperatures we have been experiencing beginning in 2003. We have already seen some of the largest earthquakes ever on the planet, for example, the 2004 Indonesian M9.1+ quake and tsunami and the March 11, 2011 Japanese M9.0 quake. We have also had several large volcanic eruptions that have shut down aircraft traffic for large areas of the globe in the past five years. This global threat which pertains to California as well as the rest of the planet is covered in some detail in the June 10 edition of the Global Climate Status Report published by the SSRC.”

Second, the IEVPC’s recent analysis of seismic trends in California is in part an outcome of interest in the IEVPC earthquake prediction capabilities expressed by California insurers. The IEVPC’s analysis of Southern California indicates that that this area of the US west coast has now entered its highest risk period since the modern satellite era began in the 1970’s.

Dr. Dong Choi, Director of Research for the IEVPC, in Canberra, Australia says, “We were only asked to look at Southern California and with our own limited funding. Yet, we were still able to detect general trends of seismic activity that suggests a new period of major quakes is likely between 23 and 33 degrees North Latitude along the San Andreas fault. That includes the Gulf of California up to the Santa Barbara area. Concurrent with this general higher risk we see for that length of the San Andreas, we have also observed other precursor signals that warrant posting of another “Observation” in our new Test Program for the area near Angel de la Guarda in the Gulf.”

Postings for any Observations will be made to the IEVPC web site as they occur. See www.ievpc.org.

ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL EARTHQUAKE AND VOLCANO PREDICTION CENTER (IEVPC)

The International Earthquake and Volcano Prediction Center (IEVPC) was founded in February 2012 by a team of scientists and other experts with established track records for excellence in science research, especially tectonics, volcanism, seismic research, management, and other skills necessary for achieving the Mission and Objectives of the IEVPC.This team originated after its founders realized that there were strong correlations between the occurrences of earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic activity, solar activity, and precursor geophysical events.

These precursors have been studied for many years by the IEVPC founders, staff scientists and researchers who represent the primary body of expertise in understanding these early signals that catastrophic geophysical events (CGE) are about to strike.

Is God Evil or the Absence of Evil?

einstein_god_jesus

Albert Einstein on God and the Gospel. For a larger view click on the image.

I found this amazing video posted on Florida Representative Ray Pilon’s Facebook page. The professor, like many in our schools, colleges and universities, is teaching his students that “if God exists then God is evil.” His rational is that God created everything in the world, evil exists in the world, therefore God is evil.

It takes the understanding of a young Albert Einstein to explain to the professor what he is missing. God is the absence of evil, just as darkness is the absence of light.

Without knowing it this young boy is a Christian apologist much like Dr. William Lane Craig and others. To better understand read Dr. Craig’s God, Evil, and the Rules of Logic. When using logic to describe God and evil Dr. Craig concludes, “[T]he laws of logic are neither arbitrarily willed by God nor is He subservient to them; rather they are grounded in His nature.”

Dr. Craig also addresses this issue in response to a letter from an atheist. Please read the question and Dr. Craig’s answer to the question: Is God Able to Do Evil?

Hat tip to Kingdom Culture for posting this video. Watch and comment if you wish:

If you wish to learn more about Christian apologetics please visit  Reasonable Faith with William Lane Craig.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image titled “Feel God” is courtesy of Imgion.com.